Defendant

Kim Yong-American

Attorney Ansan-ok (Korean National Assembly)

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

The charge of violating the Harbor Transport Business Act is not guilty

The Defendant is a person operating a mutually named petroleum retail store in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City ○○○dong (Land Number omitted), and even if he does not manufacture, import, or sell pseudo petroleum products or store, transport, or store pseudo petroleum products with knowledge that they are pseudo petroleum products, the Defendant should not manufacture, import, or sell

From June 2, 2006 to July 2, 17:00 of the same year, pseudo petroleum products were manufactured by mixing pseudo petroleum products with normal light oil and cleaning agents at the same rate, and then (vehicle number omitted) products were sold 3,000 to 4,000 liter per l,230 liter by pretending that the above pseudo petroleum products were general transit by using the tank of the vehicle (vehicle number omitted).

1. Statement of the accused in the fourth protocol of trial;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Notifications of the results of quality inspections of petroleum products and investigation reports (for vehicles using suspects, cases);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

inclusive, Article 44 subparagraph 3 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act and the main text of Article 29 (Selection of Fine)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the facts charged

Of the facts charged in this case, the summary of the charge of violating the Harbor Transport Business Act is that the Defendant is the actual owner and operator of the general petroleum retail business located in ○○dong-dong, Incheon, and the person who intends to operate the harbor transport-related business is registered with the chief of the regional maritime affairs and fisheries office as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries according to the port and type of business. However, on December 19, 2006, the Defendant supplied the Incheon Ship Registry (300 tons) working at the sea at the construction site of the Incheon Yan-dong, Incheon Yan-dong, Incheon Yan-dong, Incheon Yan-dong (615 tons) and the 360-liter market price of 415,4450 won via the fuel oil, which is the work fuel oil of 360-liter (615 tons) from around that time to February 26, 2007, such as supplying approximately 69,64448484,860 million won through 56 times.

2. Determination

A. Article 30 subparagraph 2 of the former Harbor Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “Act”) provides that a person who conducts a harbor transport-related business without registration or report under Article 26-3 (1) shall be punished. Article 26-3 (1) of the Act provides that “any person who intends to conduct a harbor transport-related business shall register with the chief of a regional maritime affairs and fisheries office as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries by harbor and by type of business.” Article 2 (4) of the Act provides that “harbor transport-related business” means a harbor service business, goods supply business, ship oil supply business and container repair business providing goods or services to a ship in a harbor, and Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Transport Business Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) provides that “business supplying fuel oil for ships” shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

B. The interpretation of penal provisions must be strict, and it is not permitted to expand or analogically interpret the meaning of penal provisions to the disadvantage of the defendant, because it is contrary to the principle of no punishment without the law.

C. In light of these legal principles, the Defendant’s statement and record in the second trial records, the Nonindicted Party’s statement and record in the third trial records, the police interrogation records in the third trial records, and the police statements in the Nonindicted Party’s statement about the Nonindicted Party: (i) the Defendant supplied oil such as light and light oil to the barge △△△ and the Nonindicted Party as indicated in the above facts charged; (ii) the above oil supplied by the Defendant was used in machines such as power generators installed in △△△ and Manife Manif; (iii) the instant machinery did not put oil oil sold on land as oil equipment; and (iv) the fact that the Nonindicted Party, a complaint in the construction site, supplied oil from the Defendant, provided the said barge for the purpose of navigation and △△△△△△△ even if oil was collected more than the oil supplied by the Defendant; and (v) the fact that the Defendant supplied the barge with oil for the purpose of navigation and △△△△△△ was not capable of being used in the above machinery.

Therefore, with respect to whether the Defendant’s supply of land oil used for the instant machinery to each barge for the purpose of simple storage as seen above constitutes “ship oil supply business”, Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree defines “ship oil supply business” as “business of supplying ship oil,” and Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree does not define “ship oil” as “business of supplying ship fuel oil,” but it is reasonable to interpret “business of supplying ship fuel oil used for the purpose of ship navigation” as “business of supplying ship fuel oil, regardless of the purpose of ship navigation,” or “business of supplying ship fuel oil used for the purpose of simple storage” as in the instant case, including the instant case, is interpreted as “business of supplying ship fuel oil” or “business of supplying ship fuel oil used for the purpose of operating land machinery for the purpose of simple storage,” as it violates the principle of no punishment without law by excessively interpreting or expanding penal provisions (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3787, Jun. 27, 2007).

3. Conclusion

Thus, among the facts charged in this case, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because the violation of the Harbor Transport Business Act does not constitute a crime.

【Crime Disturbing Table】

Judges Kim Jong-soo